Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2012 1:10:00 PM (view original):He just doesn't want to get locked down. I get that. But I need a commitment.

Have I ever touted WAR as the be all of stats?

Trout for MVP.

But, back on point, when the market is flooded(in this case people who've never had insurance), your historical numbers mean nothing. The situation hasn't existed. My theory is people who've had "a sore thumb" for years will line up to see a doctor because it will be cheap. I could be wrong but I doubt it. People will stand in line for a free sippy cup.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2012 1:10:00 PM (view original):He just doesn't want to get locked down. I get that. But I need a commitment.

Have I ever touted WAR as the be all of stats?

Trout for MVP.

But, back on point, when the market is flooded(in this case people who've never had insurance), your historical numbers mean nothing. The situation hasn't existed. My theory is people who've had "a sore thumb" for years will line up to see a doctor because it will be cheap. I could be wrong but I doubt it. People will stand in line for a free sippy cup.

I never argued that WAR was the be all. It's one stat (among many) in Trout's favor. If Cabrera had been better than Trout, I'd be touting him for MVP.

I think you're basing this idea on the fact that there is this huge population that has been dying to see a doctor for some small problem that will probably go away on its own (but for some reason hasn't yet). I don't think they exist.

I'm sure there are plenty of people without insurance who have legitimate medical needs that aren't being addressed and who would like to get treatment. Those people will cost us less (in terms of premium increases and higher taxes) in long run if they can get treatment for small problems before they become big problems.

Obamacare or no Obamacare, it's more expensive to insurance companies if people put off preventative care and allow small things to turn into big things.

Preventative care doesn't guarantee that small things don't turn into big things. People, except swamp, know being fat is unhealthy yet they go to all-you-can-eat joints. They know smoking is horrible for you but still pay crazy prices for a carton of smokes. They know snorting coke is bad for them but chop out another line.

I'm not arguing that you can guarantee that small things don't turn into big things or prevent people from being people. But we have data on this. That's how health insurance companies and life insurance companies make money.

They know, over a large sample size, what behaviors lead to what outcomes. Having insurance and getting preventative care (along with encouraging people to seek medical care for small problems) is a positive factor that reduces long term medical costs. They also know increasing copays encourages people to not seek medical care until the problem becomes unbearable.

"This is one of the major problems with America: Those who aren't poor seem to think everyone who is poor must be wasting the money they do have or save, which simply isn't true in many cases.

To attack poor people this way tells me you have probably never been poor or faced significant financial struggle in your life - because if you had, you wouldn't think like this."

I came from a lower middle-class background, bordering on poor. My father worked in a factory for 24 1/2 years, was laid off 6 months before he was eligible for a pension. Then he became disabled with health problems that caused him to not be able to work from his late-40's on. We barely scratched by trying to live on first his hourly paychecks when he was working, and then his Social Security Disability checks and whatever money my mom could earn cleaning other peoples houses for $10-$15 a pop a couple of days a week. We occasionally had to slip into welfare when times were especially tough. This was in the mid-70's. I remember going to the grocery store and learning how to separate the items that were eligible for food stamps from the items that were not. Neither of my parents knew how to drive a car, which didn't really matter much since we did not have money to afford a car, even a junky one, if they could drive. We had to rely on public transportation or being given rides by friends or family to go anywhere. We never took a family vacation when I was growing up because we couldn't afford it.

Many of these experiences from my childhood and teenage years shape who am I today. I've worked hard in school to get good grades, to go to college, and establish myself as a successful person in my profession. I married a woman with a similar story to tell, so we have a somewhat common background. We've made sacrifices to get where we are today, live in a very nice house in a nice neighborhood in what is generally regarded as a somewhat affluent town. I pay more in property taxes on my house every year than my father ever earned in a year.

So yeah, I kind of get what "poor" is like. So I think I can speak about it.

I've worked with a lot of them. Many have overdrawn bank accounts but they have SSI money for smokes.

I'm not sure why so many people want to appoint themselves as the personal financial adviser to anyone who is poor. They want to attack poor people's financial decisions, analyze their purchases, and criticize where and how they spend their money. This is borne out of arrogance, i.e. "I have money and you don't so I'm better than you".

When I hear people doing this I ask them how they would feel if someone wealthier than they are started telling them how to spend their money. Invariably they take offense at such a suggestion, and I then point out this is exactly the same thing they are doing to someone who is less well off than they are. The intelligent ones can see the connection and usually feel embarrassed at their recent behavior; the stupid and/or belligerent continue onward in their ignorance.

I've stood in line at job fairs, taken a train 50 miles for a job interview, worked retail at ToysRUs, and took jobs below my education/skills to put food on the table for my family, keep the insurance going, and keep a roof over our heads.

I'm glad you're willing to do all those things - and so are many other people. Sometimes it doesn't work out for some people the way it apparently has (at least to some extent) for you. That doesn't mean anyone has the right to judge them or their financial decisions, any more than someone with more money than you has the right to judge yours.

But the reality is that jobs are out there IF YOU'RE WILLING TO WORK and work hard.

I disagree 100 percent.

There are more people looking for jobs than there are jobs available. That isn't my opinion - that's a fact. It doesn't matter how hard you work, you can't fight the facts.

The situation becomes even worse if you're discussing only fully time jobs who pay a family sustaining wage and provide benefits such as health insurance. It's even more difficult to find this kind of a job, no matter how hard you are willing to work.

Are some people able to overcome these dismal facts? Absolutely. However, many more struggle, work hard, and still they struggle more. Yet many people such as yourself seem to think anyone without a job or a good job must simply be unwilling to work or must not be working hard enough.

It doesn't work that way. You can work harder than anyone and still fail, and you can be lazy and stumble upon success. That's life. Not everyone who struggles is to blame for that struggle.

This is true, but preventative care certainly helps. If you don't understand that, then you simply don't know enough to debate this at all.

They know, over a large sample size, what behaviors lead to what outcomes. Having insurance and getting preventative care (along with encouraging people to seek medical care for small problems) is a positive factor that reduces long term medical costs. They also know increasing copays encourages people to not seek medical care until the problem becomes unbearable.

They also know they need a co-pay to discourage people from going for unnecessary things, which is why it exists in the first place. It's the same reason deductibles exist. They want people to think twice before using the insurance.

However, like you said, if you raise the costs of those things too high, people won't use it at all and will in the long run end up costing more, so they try to create a balance.

The bottom line is that everyone having health insurance, or the country getting universal health care, is a great thing. Obamacare may not be perfect, but it could be a crucial step in the right direction (which is universal health care).

So yeah, I kind of get what "poor" is like. So I think I can speak about it.

Given your background, you should be sensitive to what it is like to be poor and should be an advocate for those who are currently poor. I certainly wouldn't expect someone whose history is what you told to blame the poor for their own situation, to suggest none of them work hard or are willing to do so, or to try to judge how they spend whatever money they do have.

If that is your history, you know those things weren't true about you and your family, so you would know it isn't necessarily true about others who are poor.

So yeah, I kind of get what "poor" is like. So I think I can speak about it.

Given your background, you should be sensitive to what it is like to be poor and should be an advocate for those who are currently poor. I certainly wouldn't expect someone whose history is what you told to blame the poor for their own situation, to suggest none of them work hard or are willing to do so, or to try to judge how they spend whatever money they do have.

If that is your history, you know those things weren't true about you and your family, so you would know it isn't necessarily true about others who are poor.

I never said all poor are to blame for their own situation. I do believe that some are. I know from personal experience that people make stupid and irresponsible financial decisions and have nobody to blame but themselves.

And I also believe that there are welfare queens and unemployment kings who are perfectly happy to live off the government handouts and make no effort to become self-sufficient. They've settled into a lifestyle that they are comfortable with and resist any efforts to encourage them to better themselves.

Do you deny that those people exist? Is it the responsibility of everybody else to coddle them?

That doesn't mean anyone has the right to judge them or their financial decisions, any more than someone with more money than you has the right to judge yours.

This is where you're missing the point. OUR OWN GOVERNMENT is taking some of my money to subsidize these non-workers, who, as tec points out, may or may not actually be trying to get a decent job. I have no problem if the government money goes towards SOLVING THE PROBLEM, i.e. training them for the jobs that are available, or interview counseling. I have a BIG problem with money that is simply handed out with no strings attached, which in essence, pays them for staying home and watching Springer.

I know from personal experience that people make stupid and irresponsible financial decisions and have nobody to blame but themselves.

Yes, people do make mistakes. So do you and I and everyone. That doesn't mean we should go around attacking everyone who fails at something because of a mistake they made.

And I also believe that there are welfare queens and unemployment kings who are perfectly happy to live off the government handouts and make no effort to become self-sufficient. They've settled into a lifestyle that they are comfortable with and resist any efforts to encourage them to better themselves.

You're right - there are people like this. Still, to think everyone who is poor is like this is extremely myopic and wrong.

I'll play devil's advocate to try to get you to see how narrow minded that view is:

In America, most people seek to find a lifestyle where they are comfortable. So if someone finds a way to be "settled into a lifestyle that they are comfortable with", who are we to suggest they should do otherwise? Why are you attacking them for doing what most Americans attempt to do?

If someone is independently wealthy and decides they are comfortable and don't ever want to work, is that okay? What if someone has a spouse who pays all the bills and they decide they don't want to work because they are comfortable, is that okay? They're settling into a comfortable lifestyle and choosing not to work, so based on what you said you should be advocating that they better themselves and go to work anyway.

If your argument is people who use government resources shouldn't do that, perhaps the energy you and others spend judging these people for doing what most people try to do (but in a way you disapprove of) would be to go to the source (the government) and advocate change rather than wasting your energy on judgment for those who are living their lives the way the system lets them.

Wow. Even I didn't expect my devil's advocate argument to come together so well. Now I have to remind myself to advocate change rather than judging others for taking advantage of what is there the same way anyone else does.

I've worked with a lot of them. Many have overdrawn bank accounts but they have SSI money for smokes.

I'm not sure why so many people want to appoint themselves as the personal financial adviser to anyone who is poor. They want to attack poor people's financial decisions, analyze their purchases, and criticize where and how they spend their money. This is borne out of arrogance, i.e. "I have money and you don't so I'm better than you".

When I hear people doing this I ask them how they would feel if someone wealthier than they are started telling them how to spend their money. Invariably they take offense at such a suggestion, and I then point out this is exactly the same thing they are doing to someone who is less well off than they are. The intelligent ones can see the connection and usually feel embarrassed at their recent behavior; the stupid and/or belligerent continue onward in their ignorance.

I would listen.... believe it or not, ever since I started listening to people with more money than me and watching how they manage their money I have become much better myself at acquiring wealth (and keeping it). Apparently you get all emotional and take offense. I guess we differ there. Acting on emotion generally leads to irrational decisions IMO. Think about some of the decisions you've made while angry, in love, or anxious. in hindsight would there have been better choices? In your example above - getting offended that someone more successful than yourself is telling you not to waste the little money you have on cigs and lottery tickets will not help you improve your lifestyle.... listening to them will.

I know from personal experience that people make stupid and irresponsible financial decisions and have nobody to blame but themselves.

Yes, people do make mistakes. So do you and I and everyone. That doesn't mean we should go around attacking everyone who fails at something because of a mistake they made.

And I also believe that there are welfare queens and unemployment kings who are perfectly happy to live off the government handouts and make no effort to become self-sufficient. They've settled into a lifestyle that they are comfortable with and resist any efforts to encourage them to better themselves.

You're right - there are people like this. Still, to think everyone who is poor is like this is extremely myopic and wrong.

I'll play devil's advocate to try to get you to see how narrow minded that view is:

In America, most people seek to find a lifestyle where they are comfortable. So if someone finds a way to be "settled into a lifestyle that they are comfortable with", who are we to suggest they should do otherwise? Why are you attacking them for doing what most Americans attempt to do?

If someone is independently wealthy and decides they are comfortable and don't ever want to work, is that okay? What if someone has a spouse who pays all the bills and they decide they don't want to work because they are comfortable, is that okay? They're settling into a comfortable lifestyle and choosing not to work, so based on what you said you should be advocating that they better themselves and go to work anyway.

If your argument is people who use government resources shouldn't do that, perhaps the energy you and others spend judging these people for doing what most people try to do (but in a way you disapprove of) would be to go to the source (the government) and advocate change rather than wasting your energy on judgment for those who are living their lives the way the system lets them.

Wow. Even I didn't expect my devil's advocate argument to come together so well. Now I have to remind myself to advocate change rather than judging others for taking advantage of what is there the same way anyone else does.

?

That's the point... many of us are not happy paying taxes so that people can decide to coast on gov't welfare. I don't care if that's what they want to do... I don't want to provide for it. That's why I am 'advocating change' by voting for Mittens on Tuesday.

That doesn't mean anyone has the right to judge them or their financial decisions, any more than someone with more money than you has the right to judge yours.

This is where you're missing the point. OUR OWN GOVERNMENT is taking some of my money to subsidize these non-workers, who, as tec points out, may or may not actually be trying to get a decent job. I have no problem if the government money goes towards SOLVING THE PROBLEM, i.e. training them for the jobs that are available, or interview counseling. I have a BIG problem with money that is simply handed out with no strings attached, which in essence, pays them for staying home and watching Springer.

I will never forget a debate that Bush had with Kerry where minimum wage came up.... Now Bush can't explain **** without looking like a total idiot.... and this time was no different. Kerry was saying that minimum wages had to increase.... bush in bush moronic style gets all flustered and says no its education... thats how we get people better paying jobs.

I am a HUGE believer in education. And I agree bush was right on this point, even though he couldn't spit it out correctly. Giving someone more money when they don't have the knowledge on how to spend it wisely is wasted money imo.... spend that same money (or time) teaching that same individual financial responsibility and now that person will be equipped to be more successful moving forward. education does not need to be a college degree... its needs to be a desire from within to want to learn and acquire useful knowledge.... that can come from using a library internet, an outreach group, or a friend, mentor etc. You don't have to be rich to use any of those outlets.

bistiza would say I'm offending that individual because I told them how to spend their money..... even though I would suggest I'm helping, rather than enabling.

interesting discussion going on...can I flip it a bit? What about those that are born into a great situation, very well off, well-educated, and have a sense of entitlement, although they have in no way contributed to their own good fortune. Should they be entitled to pay lower taxes based on how the money they did not earn flows to them?